(03-12-2020 10:39 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(03-12-2020 10:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am suspicious when consistently antiTrump sources tell me his leadership is poor.

The market futures here literally dropped 1600 points in the immediate aftermath of his speech. Global markets fell as well at the same time. You don't have to listen to Don Lemon or Lad or me or Cryin' Chuck or Sloe Gin Joe or anyone else.

(03-12-2020 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ah yes, the cutting of the US Pandemic Response Team is obtuse to a conversation about :checks notes: a US pandemic response.

Impressive argument.

(03-12-2020 10:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-12-2020 10:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2020 10:21 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(03-12-2020 10:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2020 09:56 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  First of all, the "federal government", broadly and not just where the buck stops, is a large organization that is already doing what it does behind the scenes in its work with state and local governments. The leadership, guidance, and support is already there, functioning automatically, and doesn't depend on what Trump says in a speech. If you think that because Trump hasn't spoken, federal agencies are doing nothing, then you've got a huge misimpression of how government works. The Presidency could be vacant and these agencies would be functioning.

Second, we've been getting plenty of advice. I don't think anyone needs Trump to tell them to wash their hands and avoid sick people. We've already heard that.

ETA: To put it another way: do you want Trump actively intervening in what is happening at the state and local level? Be careful what you wish for.

No, to put it another way, I want the federal government to clearly, and concisely express, and show through action, that they are doing what is in their powers to mobilize support for the state and local practitioners.

WTF does this even mean? What would "mobilized support" look like?

For starters, we could be deploying military doctors and the Army Corp to expand our hospital capabilities in targeted areas to make sure our ICU's have sufficient capacity to deal with normal medical cases AND COVID-19 cases.

We could have pushed sooner to develop more test kits, so that states could request sufficient funds to meet their testing goals.

MASH 4077?

(03-12-2020 10:31 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(03-12-2020 10:23 AM)mrbig Wrote:  That would go a long way to helping in my office, as I saw people shaking hands yesterday when they were greeting each other.

The one thing I wanted to hear from Trump yesterday was that the coronavirus outbreak response is the #1 priority for the federal government and that he will make any and all resources available based on what the scientific and medical experts tell him are needed to contain the spread of the virus. I didn't quite hear that.

Oh, you want reassuring memos and speeches with the usual platitudes, and restatements of the obvious. Yeah, we differ on that. Those don't do much for me.

(03-12-2020 10:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-12-2020 10:33 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2020 10:31 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(03-12-2020 10:23 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(03-12-2020 09:56 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  First of all, the "federal government", broadly and not just where the buck stops, is a large organization that is already doing what it does behind the scenes in its work with state and local governments. The leadership, guidance, and support is already there, functioning automatically, and doesn't depend on what Trump says in a speech. If you think that because Trump hasn't spoken, federal agencies are doing nothing, then you've got a huge misimpression of how government works. The Presidency could be vacant and these agencies would be functioning.

Thank you for mansplaining (to another man) how the federal government works. Now I understand!

Speaking seriously, I have serious disagreements with your assessment. Leadership in the federal government is extremely important. The leadership team in my office hasn't said a peep to us minions yet. I think an email from the leadership team would be very helpful. Something like:

Quote:The coronoavirus outbreak in the United States and in the New Orleans area is very important. We are actively monitoring what local governments, schools, and the Court are doing so we can act in conjunction with them.

For now, please try to avoid large gatherings of people. While it is very common to shake hands and even hug in New Orleans, please refrain from doing so. Wash your hands frequently and pay attention to guidance from the CDC.

Our office is instituting a liberal leave policy similar to what we do when a possible hurricane is threatening the area. If you feel sick, stay home. If you have a sick family member, stay home. If you know you have been in recent contact with someone who is sick, stay home. If you stay home, communicate with your immediate supervisor and co-workers about any work that needs to be addressed.

We will continue to provide updates every few days as developments continue to unfold.

That would go a long way to helping in my office, as I saw people shaking hands yesterday when they were greeting each other.

The one thing I wanted to hear from Trump yesterday was that the coronavirus outbreak response is the #1 priority for the federal government and that he will make any and all resources available based on what the scientific and medical experts tell him are needed to contain the spread of the virus. I didn't quite hear that.

Oh, you want reassuring memos and speeches with the usual platitudes, and restatements of the obvious. Yeah, we differ on that. Those don't do much for me.

But they actually do affect people. Out of a country 300+ Million, the POTUS' words will impact a percentage of them - especially those that value what Trump says, and not the rest of the government.

Yes they do. But when trump was saying reassuring things to the country, the left was calling him a liar. How reassuring do you think that was?

Look, when the lights come on and the theater manager goes to the front of the stage to tell us there is no reason for panic, please just move calmly and in an orderly fashion to the exits, last thing I need is somebody screeching "He's a liar!!!".

Maybe he is lying. maybe there really is good reason to panic and push and shove one's way out. But going to the front and telling everybody to panic still is not a good thing.

But that is exactly the situation we had and still have. Nothing he says or does will be met with approval, even if it is the exact thing yall called for 10 minutes ago. Yall are married to the idea that everything he says is a lie.

Time to join ranks, not to be divisive.

(03-12-2020 10:48 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(03-12-2020 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ah yes, the cutting of the US Pandemic Response Team is obtuse to a conversation about :checks notes: a US pandemic response.

Impressive argument.

Why are we bothering? Really, are any of you conservatives getting anything out of your interactions with the non-conservatives?

I started this thread 2 weeks ago when there were about 50 total cases in the US (I think that number includes people that were still on the cruise ship in California at the time). Now we are at 2,323. Two weeks ago the NBA was chugging along and people were excited for March Madness. Now one is suspended and the other is going to be without live spectators (with still a chance it gets suspended or cancelled). Universities across the country have announced an end to in-person classes. **** is hitting the fan right now and it is a lot[/] for **** and it is hitting the fan [b]really fast.

So I ask again, are you really getting anything out of these interactions?

(03-12-2020 10:56 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(03-12-2020 10:48 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(03-12-2020 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ah yes, the cutting of the US Pandemic Response Team is obtuse to a conversation about :checks notes: a US pandemic response.

Impressive argument.

Why are we bothering? Really, are any of you conservatives getting anything out of your interactions with the non-conservatives?

I started this thread 2 weeks ago when there were about 50 total cases in the US (I think that number includes people that were still on the cruise ship in California at the time). Now we are at 2,323. Two weeks ago the NBA was chugging along and people were excited for March Madness. Now one is suspended and the other is going to be without live spectators (with still a chance it gets suspended or cancelled). Universities across the country have announced an end to in-person classes. **** is hitting the fan right now and it is a lot[/] for **** and it is hitting the fan [b]really fast.

So I ask again, are you really getting anything out of these interactions?

Yes, actually. You've confirmed from me that the political angle is always important, even in a real emergency - style always matters more than substance. You've always got to give them the old razzle-dazzle.

(03-12-2020 10:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2020 10:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-12-2020 10:33 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2020 10:31 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(03-12-2020 10:23 AM)mrbig Wrote:  Thank you for mansplaining (to another man) how the federal government works. Now I understand!

Speaking seriously, I have serious disagreements with your assessment. Leadership in the federal government is extremely important. The leadership team in my office hasn't said a peep to us minions yet. I think an email from the leadership team would be very helpful. Something like:

That would go a long way to helping in my office, as I saw people shaking hands yesterday when they were greeting each other.

The one thing I wanted to hear from Trump yesterday was that the coronavirus outbreak response is the #1 priority for the federal government and that he will make any and all resources available based on what the scientific and medical experts tell him are needed to contain the spread of the virus. I didn't quite hear that.

Oh, you want reassuring memos and speeches with the usual platitudes, and restatements of the obvious. Yeah, we differ on that. Those don't do much for me.

But they actually do affect people. Out of a country 300+ Million, the POTUS' words will impact a percentage of them - especially those that value what Trump says, and not the rest of the government.

Yes they do. But when trump was saying reassuring things to the country, the left was calling him a liar. How reassuring do you think that was?

Look, when the lights come on and the theater manager goes to the front of the stage to tell us there is no reason for panic, please just move calmly and in an orderly fashion to the exits, last thing I need is somebody screeching "He's a liar!!!".

Maybe he is lying. maybe there really is good reason to panic and push and shove one's way out. But going to the front and telling everybody to panic still is not a good thing.

But that is exactly the situation we had and still have. Nothing he says or does will be met with approval, even if it is the exact thing yall called for 10 minutes ago. Yall are married to the idea that everything he says is a lie.

Time to join ranks, not to be divisive.

Did you read the NRO article?

The issue Trump has is he hasn't found a way to lead, or tell the truth (whether intentionally or not). Both of those are bad traits to have when there is a serious issue pressing the entire nation.

(03-12-2020 10:45 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-12-2020 10:39 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(03-12-2020 10:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am suspicious when consistently antiTrump sources tell me his leadership is poor.

The market futures here literally dropped 1600 points in the immediate aftermath of his speech. Global markets fell as well at the same time. You don't have to listen to Don Lemon or Lad or me or Cryin' Chuck or Sloe Gin Joe or anyone else.

But three weeks ago, those only affected the rich. what changed?

(03-12-2020 10:59 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2020 10:56 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(03-12-2020 10:48 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(03-12-2020 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ah yes, the cutting of the US Pandemic Response Team is obtuse to a conversation about :checks notes: a US pandemic response.

Impressive argument.

Why are we bothering? Really, are any of you conservatives getting anything out of your interactions with the non-conservatives?

I started this thread 2 weeks ago when there were about 50 total cases in the US (I think that number includes people that were still on the cruise ship in California at the time). Now we are at 2,323. Two weeks ago the NBA was chugging along and people were excited for March Madness. Now one is suspended and the other is going to be without live spectators (with still a chance it gets suspended or cancelled). Universities across the country have announced an end to in-person classes. **** is hitting the fan right now and it is a lot[/] for **** and it is hitting the fan [b]really fast.

So I ask again, are you really getting anything out of these interactions?

Yes, actually. You've confirmed from me that the political angle is always important, even in a real emergency - style always matters more than substance. You've always got to give them the old razzle-dazzle.

So do I understand that your opinion is that our federal response has been tip-top and exactly what we should have done/are doing?

(03-12-2020 10:56 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Yes, actually. You've confirmed from me that the political angle is always important, even in a real emergency - style always matters more than substance. You've always got to give them the old razzle-dazzle.

(03-12-2020 11:00 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-12-2020 10:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2020 10:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-12-2020 10:33 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2020 10:31 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Oh, you want reassuring memos and speeches with the usual platitudes, and restatements of the obvious. Yeah, we differ on that. Those don't do much for me.

But they actually do affect people. Out of a country 300+ Million, the POTUS' words will impact a percentage of them - especially those that value what Trump says, and not the rest of the government.

Yes they do. But when trump was saying reassuring things to the country, the left was calling him a liar. How reassuring do you think that was?

Look, when the lights come on and the theater manager goes to the front of the stage to tell us there is no reason for panic, please just move calmly and in an orderly fashion to the exits, last thing I need is somebody screeching "He's a liar!!!".

Maybe he is lying. maybe there really is good reason to panic and push and shove one's way out. But going to the front and telling everybody to panic still is not a good thing.

But that is exactly the situation we had and still have. Nothing he says or does will be met with approval, even if it is the exact thing yall called for 10 minutes ago. Yall are married to the idea that everything he says is a lie.

Time to join ranks, not to be divisive.

Did you read the NRO article?

The issue Trump has is he hasn't found a way to lead, or tell the truth (whether intentionally or not). Both of those are bad traits to have when there is a serious issue pressing the entire nation.

I think somebody needs to listen to a larger variety of sources.

But maybe you have the sources to support the bolded, and can quote them. I am sure they will be unbiased.

(03-12-2020 11:08 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(03-12-2020 10:56 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Yes, actually. You've confirmed from me that the political angle is always important, even in a real emergency - style always matters more than substance. You've always got to give them the old razzle-dazzle.

Actually, it is the opposite. I don't need or want razzle-dazzle. I want honest competency. The only reason there is a political angle right now is because Trump made certain budgetary and personnel decisions that seem to have weakened the federal government's capability to identify and react to a potential pandemic and now he hasn't provided the kind of honest competent leadership needed in a time of crisis.

Post 9/11, George W Bush wasn't razzly or dazzly but he was honest and competent. On the flip side of that coin, post-Katrina he wasn't razzly or dazzly but he also wasn't competent. Both responses had a "political angle" because when a politician does a good or bad job on something, the "political angle" is how everyone decides if that person should continue in their job. If I am not competent in a time of crisis, my boss just fires me. But that can't happen with politicians so there is a "political angle".

(03-12-2020 11:28 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(03-12-2020 11:08 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(03-12-2020 10:56 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Yes, actually. You've confirmed from me that the political angle is always important, even in a real emergency - style always matters more than substance. You've always got to give them the old razzle-dazzle.

Actually, it is the opposite. I don't need or want razzle-dazzle. I want honest competency. The only reason there is a political angle right now is because Trump made certain budgetary and personnel decisions that seem to have weakened the federal government's capability to identify and react to a potential pandemic and now he hasn't provided the kind of honest competent leadership needed in a time of crisis.

Post 9/11, George W Bush wasn't razzly or dazzly but he was honest and competent. On the flip side of that coin, post-Katrina he wasn't razzly or dazzly but he also wasn't competent. Both responses had a "political angle" because when a politician does a good or bad job on something, the "political angle" is how everyone decides if that person should continue in their job. If I am not competent in a time of crisis, my boss just fires me. But that can't happen with politicians so there is a "political angle".

Again, that's were you and I differ. I care more about leadership results than leadership appearances. GW was very Presidential and all, but then gave us Afghanistan.

You gave me the graphical evidence that the U.S. is doing as well as any other country in handling coronavirus, and even better than some countries being praised for their style points. But then you abandon the data in favor of faulting the leadership.

In what I do for a living, so it's now second nature, the results and data always trump the presentation, in the end.

(03-12-2020 09:17 AM)mrbig Wrote:  I basically reacted like the market reacted ... a 1600-point drop in US stock futures in the immediate aftermath of Trump's speech says a lot about the confidence in his leadership ability during this crisis.m like this, he looks like a hostage reading a script to his family back home.

(03-12-2020 11:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2020 11:28 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(03-12-2020 11:08 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(03-12-2020 10:56 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Yes, actually. You've confirmed from me that the political angle is always important, even in a real emergency - style always matters more than substance. You've always got to give them the old razzle-dazzle.

Actually, it is the opposite. I don't need or want razzle-dazzle. I want honest competency. The only reason there is a political angle right now is because Trump made certain budgetary and personnel decisions that seem to have weakened the federal government's capability to identify and react to a potential pandemic and now he hasn't provided the kind of honest competent leadership needed in a time of crisis.

Post 9/11, George W Bush wasn't razzly or dazzly but he was honest and competent. On the flip side of that coin, post-Katrina he wasn't razzly or dazzly but he also wasn't competent. Both responses had a "political angle" because when a politician does a good or bad job on something, the "political angle" is how everyone decides if that person should continue in their job. If I am not competent in a time of crisis, my boss just fires me. But that can't happen with politicians so there is a "political angle".

Again, that's were you and I differ. I care more about leadership results than leadership appearances. GW was very Presidential and all, but then gave us Afghanistan.

You gave me the graphical evidence that the U.S. is doing as well as any other country in handling coronavirus, and even better than some countries being praised for their style points. But then you abandon the data in favor of faulting the leadership.

In what I do for a living, so it's now second nature, the results and data always trump the presentation, in the end.

What is the Trump admin doing that makes you think we'll be peers with countries who have either had COVID-19 under control from the start, or recently appear to have gotten it under control?

I posted an interesting article from WIRED earlier about the steps Singapore has taken to protect their citizens, and we are not in the same ballpark in any part of the country.

(03-12-2020 09:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And at times like this I think the best thing the federal government can do is GTFO of the way and stop putting up roadblocks. The attitude from the left has been, "OMG he cut the CDC budget and without the CDC we are powerless to do anything about it."

That's why I've been asking exactly WTF does the CDC actually DO? My impression is that they are an administrative agency rather than a doing agency. Kind of analogous to FEMA.

(03-12-2020 09:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If Trump caused this by cutting headcount at CDC, exactly what would those people have done if they were still there? Go to China to study up close and personal? Nope, China wouldn't allow it. Shuffle some papers and compile some statistics? Probably.

Quote:From 2004 to 2014, 15 CNIC staff received training in CDC Atlanta, from one month to 1.5 years in length, on topics including influenza surveillance and laboratory management, reverse genetic techniques, serological techniques, pathology, antigenicity characterization, and drug resistance surveillance. CNIC provided lecture-based training to 2320 staff from network laboratories and sentinel hospitals, and hands-on training to 450 lab specialists on cell culture, virus isolation, and serology testing and gene sequence analysis with USCDC support.

Quote:China also expanded its ILI and virological surveillance network. In 2005, the network increased from 8 to 63 network laboratories and 31 to 197 sentinel hospitals, primarily supported with funds from the Chinese government, with supplemental project-based financial support from USCDC and WHO.

Quote:During the early stages of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, USCDC and China CDC established routine conference calls between directors and experts of the two centers. USCDC shared the genetic sequence of the pandemic virus with CNIC, allowing CNIC to rapidly develop nucleic acid detection kits which were transported to national influenza network laboratories and other laboratories across the country. The availability of testing reagents ensured accurate estimates of the magnitude of the pandemic in China and allowed the Chinese government to coordinate an appropriate response. In addition, the USCDC country team in Beijing worked closely with China CDC experts on pandemic risk assessment and response.

(03-12-2020 11:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  What is the Trump admin doing that makes you think we'll be peers with countries who have either had COVID-19 under control from the start, or recently appear to have gotten it under control?

I posted an interesting article from WIRED earlier about the steps Singapore has taken to protect their citizens, and we are not in the same ballpark in any part of the country.

(03-12-2020 11:42 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(03-12-2020 11:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2020 11:28 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(03-12-2020 11:08 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(03-12-2020 10:56 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Yes, actually. You've confirmed from me that the political angle is always important, even in a real emergency - style always matters more than substance. You've always got to give them the old razzle-dazzle.

Actually, it is the opposite. I don't need or want razzle-dazzle. I want honest competency. The only reason there is a political angle right now is because Trump made certain budgetary and personnel decisions that seem to have weakened the federal government's capability to identify and react to a potential pandemic and now he hasn't provided the kind of honest competent leadership needed in a time of crisis.

Post 9/11, George W Bush wasn't razzly or dazzly but he was honest and competent. On the flip side of that coin, post-Katrina he wasn't razzly or dazzly but he also wasn't competent. Both responses had a "political angle" because when a politician does a good or bad job on something, the "political angle" is how everyone decides if that person should continue in their job. If I am not competent in a time of crisis, my boss just fires me. But that can't happen with politicians so there is a "political angle".

Again, that's were you and I differ. I care more about leadership results than leadership appearances. GW was very Presidential and all, but then gave us Afghanistan.

You gave me the graphical evidence that the U.S. is doing as well as any other country in handling coronavirus, and even better than some countries being praised for their style points. But then you abandon the data in favor of faulting the leadership.

In what I do for a living, so it's now second nature, the results and data always trump the presentation, in the end.

What is the Trump admin doing that makes you think we'll be peers with countries who have either had COVID-19 under control from the start, or recently appear to have gotten it under control?

I posted an interesting article from WIRED earlier about the steps Singapore has taken to protect their citizens, and we are not in the same ballpark in any part of the country.

I look at the data, not at what some suit is doing for appearance sake.

Comparisons to Singapore aren't helpful. That's very much apples to oranges. Singapore is an authoritarian (yes I know they are technically a constitutional republic so please don't stall by parsing that - we both know what I mean) city-state.

(03-12-2020 11:08 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(03-12-2020 10:56 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Yes, actually. You've confirmed from me that the political angle is always important, even in a real emergency - style always matters more than substance. You've always got to give them the old razzle-dazzle.

Actually, it is the opposite. I don't need or want razzle-dazzle. I want honest competency. The only reason there is a political angle right now is because Trump made certain budgetary and personnel decisions that seem to have weakened the federal government's capability to identify and react to a potential pandemic and now he hasn't provided the kind of honest competent leadership needed in a time of crisis.
Post 9/11, George W Bush wasn't razzly or dazzly but he was honest and competent. On the flip side of that coin, post-Katrina he wasn't razzly or dazzly but he also wasn't competent. Both responses had a "political angle" because when a politician does a good or bad job on something, the "political angle" is how everyone decides if that person should continue in their job. If I am not competent in a time of crisis, my boss just fires me. But that can't happen with politicians so there is a "political angle".